The Rumour Thread

[Ragest]

1 minute ago, Sception said:

If faction tactics go away then battle tactics lose their value as a balancing lever, which is the only thing I currently like about them.  😛

Well, they had 3 years to try to balance faction tactics and I'm still waiting for the results.

[Landohammer]

Just now, Sception said:

If faction tactics go away then battle tactics lose their value as a balancing lever, which is the only thing I currently like about them.  😛

What do you want as the alternative?

Without secondary objectives, games often end up just being decided by the most lethal of the two armies. They promote building diverse lists rather than just bringing the most elite units. There is a reason secondaries are a major feature in 40k and AOS nowadays. 

I think 3.0 was the best edition ever but faction battle tactics were likely the weakest part. They never quite got them balanced. My Tzeentch army can easily complete 3 faction tactics every game while my Sylvaneth army will probably never get a single one. 

[KingBrodd]

Im hoping that with the Scuttleboss removed but the Riders staying that at least some part of the Spiderfang will remain and be updated.

I could see a new Scuttleboss coming and new Spider Riders as well, keep the Arachnarok but add in the Spider Incarnate under a different name, maybe an ancient Arachnarok or a named one like Old One Eye the Tyranid Carnifex.

[Twisted Firaun]

13 minutes ago, KingBrodd said:

Im hoping that with the Scuttleboss removed but the Riders staying that at least some part of the Spiderfang will remain and be updated.

I could see a new Scuttleboss coming and new Spider Riders as well, keep the Arachnarok but add in the Spider Incarnate under a different name, maybe an ancient Arachnarok or a named one like Old One Eye the Tyranid Carnifex.

Maybe we will finally see the scuttlings from Silver Tower finally turned into an actual kit? 

I have a feeling that this edition will be the edition where GW "fulfills" a great deal of long time fan wish listing. We're getting a mass Skaven update, they've shut down the third-party guys who produced not-chaos-dwarfs and have increasingly teased proper chorfs in aos, Darkoath have arrived to replace Chaos Marauders, and the freaking Silent People got a lore article. Of course, I could be completely wrong but it's nice to have hope.

[Ganigumo]

24 minutes ago, Landohammer said:

If the faction BTs are going away as rumoured then I am totally fine with it. 

If every faction has access to the same BTs then this is a great change. The issue with BTs has always been that some armies require you to jump through crazy hoops (see Sylvaneth, Nighthaunt) while others just require you to just stand around (See Tzeentch and Slaves to Darkness)

I play/assist with tournaments every month and most games get completed. I don't think incomplete games is a wider problem, but more specific to certain players/playstyles. 

There are substantial design problems with 3e's secondary system that weren't just tied to accessibility (faction BTs).
Obviously they dropped the ball on balancing them, as they clearly never considered army strength when they wrote them initially. A weak army, with easy BTs could make for a balanced design as an example, even if its not fun to play. The ones they patched in with battlescrolls were aimed at balance, but were also just addressing that the first few tomes had particularly bad/few BTs.

In terms of design BTs are terrible for new players, because you've got to weigh 6-10 options and don't know what any of them are.
They're bad for experienced players too, since its actually a solveable system for most armies. you do the same 5-6 every game, in roughly the same order, and makes every game feel the same since you need to get 5/5 every game to do well. This isn't even an issue of they're too easy, the top players are going to go 5/5 every game unless you make all of them very difficult to the point where newer players are going to get maybe 1 or 2 out of 5 every game.
They're pretty good if you're in the middle, where you're still figuring the system out and enjoy weighing the options.

This is a huge design problem because that's pretty much the worst demographic to target with a secondary system like this. Making it easy for new players makes onboarding easier, but makes it less effective at breaking close games (and probably boring) for competitive play, and targeting competitive players makes it bad for new players, but it becomes a great way to help break ties and decide close games.

There's also a lot of conflicting priorities when it comes to BTs as a whole. Failing BTs feels bad (git gud etc), but it just becomes busywork if everyone is going 5/5. Some BTs are given out like pity points to make games closer, but if its supposed to help decide winners shouldn't it be a win-more mechanic?

WH weekly did a fantastic show about it last year.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6QyHanz-IY

For reference, my preferred system would be taking like 1-3 "Grand strategies". Then you make them difficult or easy to interact with/deny. With some being end of game checks, and others being "if you did this difficult thing at any point you score it".

 

[Gutsu17]

32 minutes ago, Ragest said:

Well, they had 3 years to try to balance faction tactics and I'm still waiting for the results.

You are looking at it wrong, faction tactics *are* the balancing tool, a faction has a very low winrate? give them a super easy secondary, they are winning too much? give them a harder one

[Ferban]

5 minutes ago, Gutsu17 said:

You are looking at it wrong, faction tactics *are* the balancing tool, a faction has a very low winrate? give them a super easy secondary, they are winning too much? give them a harder one

Oof.  This reminds me of the "Hunter and Hunted" battle scroll where they straight up just gave extra points to the low performing armies.  Yes, maybe this meant they got more points and won more.  But it didn't address the substantive reasons for the low performance.  Rather than look at addressing warscrolls, battle traits, and the like - the things that would make the army play better and be more enjoyable - they simply tacked on a few extra points to artificially skew the win rates.  Even while the army had the same underlying struggle.  

I would much rather see balance applied to armies and units directly rather than simply tossing a few extra points (in the form of easy tactics) on low performers to artificially boost numbers. 

Edited April 24 by Ferban

[Landohammer]

1 minute ago, Ganigumo said:

There are substantial design problems with 3e's secondary system that weren't just tied to accessibility (faction BTs).
Obviously they dropped the ball on balancing them, as they clearly never considered army strength when they wrote them initially. A weak army, with easy BTs could make for a balanced design as an example, even if its not fun to play. The ones they patched in with battlescrolls were aimed at balance, but were also just addressing that the first few tomes had particularly bad/few BTs.

In terms of design BTs are terrible for new players, because you've got to weigh 6-10 options and don't know what any of them are.
They're bad for experienced players too, since its actually a solveable system for most armies. you do the same 5-6 every game, in roughly the same order, and makes every game feel the same since you need to get 5/5 every game to do well. This isn't even an issue of they're too easy, the top players are going to go 5/5 every game unless you make all of them very difficult to the point where newer players are going to get maybe 1 or 2 out of 5 every game.
They're pretty good if you're in the middle, where you're still figuring the system out and enjoy weighing the options.

This is a huge design problem because that's pretty much the worst demographic to target with a secondary system like this. Making it easy for new players makes onboarding easier, but makes it less effective at breaking close games (and probably boring) for competitive play, and targeting competitive players makes it bad for new players, but it becomes a great way to help break ties and decide close games.

There's also a lot of conflicting priorities when it comes to BTs as a whole. Failing BTs feels bad (git gud etc), but it just becomes busywork if everyone is going 5/5. Some BTs are given out like pity points to make games closer, but if its supposed to help decide winners shouldn't it be a win-more mechanic?

WH weekly did a fantastic show about it last year.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6QyHanz-IY

For reference, my preferred system would be taking like 1-3 "Grand strategies". Then you make them difficult or easy to interact with/deny. With some being end of game checks, and others being "if you did this difficult thing at any point you score it".

 

If we exclusively focus on the GHB tactics, I don't agree with anything you said lol. Secondary objectives require you to build your army a certain way or to take units that excel at things besides dealing massive damage/absorbing damage. Remove them and you just end up with armies purpose built to kill with maximum efficiency.

AOS is the simplest of the big four games and I do not see new players struggle with generic BTs. Most just use those little cards that come in the GHB and may take a minute to read through them at most. I'm not saying its super easy, but its not any more complicated than learning their warscrolls/spells/allegiance abilities etc. 

I play every week and I am never bored with BTs. They require planning. For example deploying so you are outside of 30" from enemy wizards for magical dominance, or positioning so you are able to get Surround and Destroy next turn. 

 

[Jagged Red Lines]

19 minutes ago, Twisted Firaun said:

Maybe we will finally see the scuttlings from Silver Tower finally turned into an actual kit? 

I have a feeling that this edition will be the edition where GW "fulfills" a great deal of long time fan wish listing. We're getting a mass Skaven update, they've shut down the third-party guys who produced not-chaos-dwarfs and have increasingly teased proper chorfs in aos, Darkoath have arrived to replace Chaos Marauders, and the freaking Silent People got a lore article. Of course, I could be completely wrong but it's nice to have hope.

Tyrion, please. No more flying squirrels, seahorses or giant cows. 

Give us the real god of the Lumineth, not this pyjama nerd.

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

51 minutes ago, Landohammer said:

Are you saying that your games, on average, last 4.5 hours?

Yeah, I think that's accurate. I have been playing games with a timer recently, and 3 hours usually gets us to mid to late round 3.

I get a whole game done in 3 hours occasionally, but only against opponents who are really familiar with their lists.

AoS just takes really long. Especially for synergy armies.

[Ejecutor]

41 minutes ago, KingBrodd said:

Im hoping that with the Scuttleboss removed but the Riders staying that at least some part of the Spiderfang will remain and be updated.

I could see a new Scuttleboss coming and new Spider Riders as well, keep the Arachnarok but add in the Spider Incarnate under a different name, maybe an ancient Arachnarok or a named one like Old One Eye the Tyranid Carnifex.

That Spider Incarnate is going to appear sooner or later in one form or another purely for prestige. Imagine they don't release it and in seven years it is there still pending as RE. It is not good for them.

[Ejecutor]

5 minutes ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:

Yeah, I think that's accurate. I have been playing games with a timer recently, and 3 hours usually gets us to mid to late round 3.

I get a whole game done in 3 hours occasionally, but only against opponents who are really familiar with their lists.

AoS just takes really long. Especially for synergy armies.

🤯

[Landohammer]

Just now, Neil Arthur Hotep said:

Yeah, I think that's accurate. I have been playing games with a timer recently, and 3 hours usually gets us to mid to late round 3.

I get a whole game done in 3 hours occasionally, but only against opponents who are really familiar with their lists.

AoS just takes really long. Especially for synergy armies.

 I mean if you are playing against guys that only play a few times a year or are new then that is completely understandable, but for a typical matched play game among adults that is crazy to me. In the matched play games that run at my FLGS, 90% of games finish within 2.5 hours. Maybe some pickup games will run to 3 hours if the guys are goofing around and chatting. 

I don't mean to yuck your yum, but that is definitely not my experience within the hobby. 

[Flippy]

20 minutes ago, Landohammer said:

If the faction BTs are going away as rumoured then I am totally fine with it. 

If every faction has access to the same BTs then this is a great change. The issue with BTs has always been that some armies require you to jump through crazy hoops (see Sylvaneth, Nighthaunt) while others just require you to just stand around (See Tzeentch and Slaves to Darkness)

There are more issues. You are forced to build an army with BTs in mind, as some of them can only be achieved with very specific resources. They also effectively prolong the game - this may not be true for experienced players, but for casuals it certainly is.

[Kronos]

12 hours ago, Ejecutor said:

Malerion and his Aelves are just a couple of editions away? Nah. It should be a rumour. What is more important is... What happened to the HH Clan!?

The Horus Heresy Prime IP was lost in the Strife. A brave last stand for the Single HH employee left. Shame because they were just about to do the 50th Weapon Set for SoH.

[Mutton]

37 minutes ago, Gutsu17 said:

You are looking at it wrong, faction tactics *are* the balancing tool, a faction has a very low winrate? give them a super easy secondary, they are winning too much? give them a harder one

Which is the absolute worst way to balance the game. "Have free victory points" feels good for nobody.

The player doesn't feel like their army is any stronger, and the opponent feels like they're being cheated.

[Gutsu17]

2 minutes ago, Mutton said:

Which is the absolute worst way to balance the game. "Have free victory points" feels good for nobody.

The player doesn't feel like their army is any stronger, and the opponent feels like they're being cheated.

Oh it absolutely is probably the worst way to go around balancing, but it makes for a good looking reports

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

15 minutes ago, Landohammer said:

 I mean if you are playing against guys that only play a few times a year or are new then that is completely understandable, but for a typical matched play game among adults that is crazy to me. In the matched play games that run at my FLGS, 90% of games finish within 2.5 hours. Maybe some pickup games will run to 3 hours if the guys are goofing around and chatting. 

I don't mean to yuck your yum, but that is definitely not my experience within the hobby. 

I don't know which of our experiences is the atypical one, but I have heard a lot of complaints of games going over 3 hours online, especially with the seasonal GHB rules. I don't think games going longer than 3 hours is that weird.

That's why I am pretty excited about the changes in 4th. The game looks like it will play a lot faster.

[Marcvs]

3 minutes ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:

I don't think games going longer than 3 hours is that weird.

+1

I see games not managing to finish the full 5 turns in 3 hours in tournaments around here all the time. At the club it goes for much longer than that (one of the reasons why I don't like AoS in "casual" settings)

[Ganigumo]

2 minutes ago, Landohammer said:

If we exclusively focus on the GHB tactics, I don't agree with anything you said lol. Secondary objectives require you to build your army a certain way or to take units that excel at things besides dealing massive damage/absorbing damage. Remove them and you just end up with armies purpose built to kill with maximum efficiency.

AOS is the simplest of the big four games and I do not see new players struggle with generic BTs. Most just use those little cards that come in the GHB and may take a minute to read through them at most. I'm not saying its super easy, but its not any more complicated than learning their warscrolls/spells/allegiance abilities etc. 

I play every week and I am never bored with BTs. They require planning. For example deploying so you are outside of 30" from enemy wizards for magical dominance, or positioning so you are able to get Surround and Destroy next turn. 

 

Just as they require you to build your army a certain way they also hurt armies that can't be built that way.

BT selection always takes people out of the game in my experience, and people can take a while to decide. Sure it might just be a minute or two, but it feels like an interruption.

The more I play at events the less I like BTs. If you stick to a single army the effect is way worse. I played Big Waaagh! for a couple, literally every game the same 5 in the same order, and I would often go 5/5 even if I got tabled. Played Kruleboyz for a few, same 5-6 every game, roughly the same order. Yes, you do need to plan for BTs, but my issue is that its a solvable system. You'll optimize your play and do the same plan every game. "I'm going first? I'll plan for a t1 magical dominance and a t2 surround and destroy, then save intimidate for t4/t5" Then you do that (with that army) nearly every game you play until a new GHB drops. Usually the way BTs get denied is by your opponent (mostly) tabling you anyways so they can't score any.

in my opinion the problem is the skill ceiling for BTs is way too low, while the complexity tax is too high. Either raise the skill ceiling or make it simpler.

I also really hate the narrative of a lot of them.  Magical dominance sounds cool, but the play is to hide a wizard in a corner and cast a spell that probably can't reach anyone useful. Reprisal? Yeah the optimal strategy is to get my general killed so I can score more points. I get there's a desire to not have the game just be about killing stuff, but its a wargame. taking the table is the game, optimizing for damage/defense is how you take and hold objectives. Forcing people to play suboptimally, or bring bad units, to score points is just taxing victory. You go from playing with 2000 points, to playing with 1600 points and 400 points of junk to score points. Just shrink the armies at that point. Honestly having BTs being stuff you want to do anyways isn't even bad design, it forces you to communicate a plan to your opponent, which lets them burn what resources they can to try to deny it. The system might be better that way, it would certainly fix the narrative issues.

[novakai]

I think the problems is that GW won’t rewrite army rules or warscrolls to an extent that would boost an underperforming army (See past examples of NH, Gitz, and Kruleboyz). They can only do things like adding minor things in like Battle tactics, rewording stuff a bit or supplements like AoR

its really the flaw of there written rules in book format but it profitable and they are willing to stick with it for the foreseeable future.

Edited April 24 by novakai

[KingBrodd]

1 hour ago, Twisted Firaun said:

Maybe we will finally see the scuttlings from Silver Tower finally turned into an actual kit? 

I have a feeling that this edition will be the edition where GW "fulfills" a great deal of long time fan wish listing. We're getting a mass Skaven update, they've shut down the third-party guys who produced not-chaos-dwarfs and have increasingly teased proper chorfs in aos, Darkoath have arrived to replace Chaos Marauders, and the freaking Silent People got a lore article. Of course, I could be completely wrong but it's nice to have hope.

Not to mention hints of Fyreslayers Wave 2 and Ogors refresh!!

If we get Fyreslayers, Ogors and Silent People in 4.0 Ill be a very satisfied Man. Ogor. Man Ogor.

[Ejecutor]

14 minutes ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:

I don't know which of our experiences is the atypical one, but I have heard a lot of complaints of games going over 3 hours online, especially with the seasonal GHB rules. I don't think games going longer than 3 hours is that weird.

That's why I am pretty excited about the changes in 4th. The game looks like it will play a lot faster.

I never played a game, but just the idea of it lasting 2:30 hours or more than 3 hours makes my head explode. It is not too appealing for someone that didn't play a single game yet.

[Ejecutor]

1 minute ago, KingBrodd said:

Not to mention hints of Fyreslayers Wave 2 and Ogors refresh!!

If we get Fyreslayers, Ogors and Silent People in 4.0 Ill be a very satisfied Man. Ogor. Man Ogor.

I see Silent People as almost impossible to come, and kinda unfair if they do. We know Chorfs are coming after Chorfs presumably Malerion at either the end of the ed or the beginning of the 5th edition. If any other faction comes before Malerion the poor guy will be a walking meme for AoS.

[RyantheFett]

25 minutes ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:

I don't know which of our experiences is the atypical one, but I have heard a lot of complaints of games going over 3 hours online, especially with the seasonal GHB rules. I don't think games going longer than 3 hours is that weird.

That's why I am pretty excited about the changes in 4th. The game looks like it will play a lot faster.

10 minutes ago, Ejecutor said:

I never played a game, but just the idea of it lasting 2:30 hours or more than 3 hours makes my head explode. It is not too appealing for someone that didn't play a single game yet.

 

I usually play once a week and my games usually last about 2 hours. If we want it to end quickly we can do it in under an hour if we bet everything on the double turn and finish the game on turn 2..................... Of course I may not be the best example since my Old World games last 30 minutes lol. 

Right now the game has a strange combo of being too long and short in the wrong spots. A heavy spell army takes forever to play, but with how fast everything dies combat is over in seconds.

The changes look fun so far and based off of how quick 10ed is (about 2 hours) it will take a lot less time to play.

Edited April 24 by RyantheFett